Shannon Watts: Single Women aren’t Protected from Gun Violence Like Married Women

Stumbled across this Cosmopolitan magazine piece from 2016 and…there are no words…

“…most younger people have similar views on issues like sex and birth control so those are generally less controversial topics. But a lot of people my age have different views on guns, so it’s something that I’d be less likely to talk about openly,” [said Emily, a 21-year-old college student in Baltimore].

Wait…this one is/was dating a LEO? Huh.

“I don’t want to look in a drawer for a towel and instead find a gun,” says Crystal, 23, who lives in New York City and is dating a police officer.

Single women are especially vulnerable [to gun violence] because laws give them less protection than married women, argues Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, part of the gun-violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety.

The 35+ year old feminists looking like roadkill and not having a clue what him them wandering the wine/cat food/meals for one aisle is pretty telling. Few of them understand that they had been duped and gave up their prime years chasing jobs, careers, and casual sexual encounters. Social engineering 101.

Good idea, but what woman doesn’t snoop in every nook and cranny of her man’s stuff? I once hid my journal under a ceiling tile and came home to my (now-ex-) wife reading it under a pile of tiles she managed to bring down while, apparently, searching the inside of the walls. And to add some insult to the injury, she was [OFC] unable to fix the damage she had created, so I had to do that too.
Out of three exs, I couldn’t find one who wasn’t psychotic.

Ain’t no odds, Bro, they ARE lying. My first wife (and only ex) was fond of saying, “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine”. That lasted about three years then I said f*ck this sh*t and booked. I had a buddy who was unlucky in love who frequently stated that if women didn’t have a p*ssy on ‘em there’d be a bounty on ‘em.

yep that is a good many women sad to say about my own gender. thankfully does not work like that in my house. if either of us took that attitude the other would quickly be out the door. Yes we share what we have, she supports me in my (expensive) hobbies though she knows I try every way I can to keep the costs down without compromising quality. One ex after we broke up tried to say what a good girlfriend she had been by saying “I was a good girlfriend. I allowed you to have your guns.” I told her she should have spoken up sooner that she did not like them. Would have saved us both a lot of stress and she took a lot of stuff of mine she decided she wanted. Nope be careful in picking them is all I can say. The one I have now I met when I was not looking to meet anyone and in fact was simply working in getting geared up to go bush hunter/gatherer style. In fact when I told her that was my plan at the time she just said when you go take me with you knowing it was not going to be some romantic getaway but a lot of hard work.

I was thinking the same thing. What’s she going thru his drawers for? AND who keeps towels in a drawer? (Maybe dish towels.) Can’t find something? Ask. Maybe he should put a mouse trap in that drawer….lol.

put it in there with a dead mouse in it. that will deter most women, and yes she will hit the roof. But when she does tell her that snooping is not acceptable and if she wants to know something ask and you will tell her the truth. If she does not like that then there is a door

Without the ~$250,000 per child it is estimated to cost to raise one to adulthood, and without the expenses that come from a woman having a say in your finances, why would anyone need to be in a state-run nursing home? I’ll have a large-breasted Swedish home-care nurse in her early 20s giving me daily sponge baths on the deck of my yacht anchored off my home in the Maldives while I sip a nice Sidecar when I’m in my 90s. If you’d rather spend your days neglected, staring at the peeling wallpaper of the basement spare room of your kids house while your son/daughter-in-law petitions your child every year to have you put in the home and your grand-kids gawk at you through the crack in the door like some kind of monster, have at it.

Cayman Brac! Small world, I am close family friends with a branch of the Kirkconnells. That family has been established there since the pirate days and has their hands in just about every business on the island (hell I think the airport’s even named after them). As a child me and my friend would discuss setting up as modern-day pirates, hiding out in some of the sea caves in the bluff on the east end 🙂 good memories!!

agree and all the while insisting that YOU look after her parents. Thankfully I am from a large family and live quite a way from all my family (plenty of disagreements about many things there and totally different world view). while my partner would insist that we look after her parents her family treat me as family (unlike my own) and i would have little hesitation in doing so as they would do the same for me if i somehow ended up unable to care for myself due to unforeseen circumstances. However this tends to be a rare situation as far as inlaws and outlaws go

Simple, single women hate waiting to Dross and then coming back for the pick up. Every married woman I know with firearms sends hubby out to do the paperwork and pickup. So they tend to have larger gun collections than single women. 😉

She’s taking about what they charmingly call “the boyfriend loophole”, whereby being attacked by somebody you’ve never lived with, never married, never had a child with isn’t considered “domestic violence”. Because having met somebody at Starbucks once doesn’t make them a domestic partner.

It’s still treated as assault and a pretty serious matter. In a world such as ours where the woman is always automatically believed whenever she accuses a man of anything, and the courts will almost unilaterally be favorable to her if and when she presses charges, she has nothing to worry about — even if it’s discovered that she was lying. They’re still well-protected under the law, regardless of what these silver-tongued harridans say.

Let’s be clear about one thing: when Shannon Watts talks about people being “protected”, she means people around them being disarmed. Period. When she talks about women being protected, she is not considering their ability to protect themselves. She is not considering the ability of their men to protect them. She is not considering whether the law forbids assaulting them. She is considering only the potential for a partner who assaults her to be disarmed.

As a society, we hold that a person has a heightened duty of care and loyalty towards members of their own family, or their own household. Therefore we hold that violence towards such people to be particularly offensive, particularly indicative of grave character flaws, and particularly predictive of future violence. That’s why it’s singled out among misdemeanors for a lifetime ban on firearm ownership.

Shannon wants to get rid of that distinction. She wants domestic violence laws to apply to dating pairs who have never cohabited, never married, never had a child together. Indeed, it would seem she wants it applied to even casual acquaintances. It would get more people banned from owning guns. That’s all she cares about. She doesn’t give a second thought to eviscerating the very basis for domestic violence statutes- namely the special status of the family under the law.

The socialist progressive, the straight, the gay, the atheist, or religious to some degree, want to control how you live. And how you interact with other people. Even on the most intimate level, they want to control you.

But as long as the straight, the gay, the atheist, or religious to some degree, as long as these people get “free stuff” from the government, they will be happy to do want they are told to do by their GOD. The all powerful government.

lol most snow flakes that have been through my life either end up awoken or out the door. I have a tendency to beat the snowflake out of them with logic but i guess that also makes them not really snowflakes just not having the shit fed to them by the media challenged and their minds opened to the truth. and no i dont determine the truth i just do my research on what govt is doing and has done behind the scenes same as most of us who are heavily pro liberty

36 yr old, single, straight and childless female here (single and childless by choice): Shannon Watts and her ilk can go f*ck themselves. Rarely am I vulgar in a public forum but I am at the point where I refuse to be told what to do by others especially as it relates to my personal life. You’ve no right to dictate to me how I can defend myself as a single female. If I want to use a full size .45 Sig or an AR with a 30 round mag for defense of myself, that’s MY choice and my RIGHT as a human being in this country. And isn’t one of the tenants of feminism about choice?

very true however “choice” in their view is only by their definition of it not true pro liberty choice which also BTW includes the choice to remain single or to marry or to defend yourself as you see fit. “Choice” by their definitions is more to do with staying single, casual sex with multiple partners and being able to kill a baby that you dont want. It does not include self defence

Her issue, it would seem, is that misdemeanor DV convictions bar gun ownership but that this doesn’t apply to a girlfriend/boyfriend situation.

In other words, if a married guy beats on his woman he can be stripped of his gun rights by a DV conviction/guilty plea meaning that, theoretically, in the future he doesn’t have a gun with which to murder his wife.

A boyfriend on the other hand can, theoretically again, do the same thing and if he’s not hit with felonies and convicted/pleads guilty, get to keep his gun rights which means that if he has a pattern of this behavior he can later use the gun he was legally allowed because of a non-DV/non-felony to keep to murder this girlfriend.

She wants DV laws to apply to every romantic situation so that all that is required to take away your gun rights is a misdemeanor conviction as opposed to getting nailed on a felony.

To the morally and intellectually elitist/socialist anti-gun contrary, simply not true!
Bear in mind the You Tube video above by a young Canadian woman who is both
morally and intellectually honest. The handgun, including the proverbial .38 caliber
revolver, can indeed be the single woman’s best friend. Again, I emphasize “Dial
911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth” by Richard
Stevens. Available at JPFO, Inc. at http://www.jpfo.org. JPFO, Inc. is “America’s Aggressive
Civil Rights Organization.” Meanwhile I will continue to actively resist “LBJ/KGB” style
anti-gun deceit, propaganda, and promoting the “victim card” in the public forum! I
defy. and thus call out the socialist nanny state elite who remain hellbent on the subversion of not only our constitutional civil liberties, but likewise the destruction
of our republic!

James A. Farmer
Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County)
Long live the State of Jefferson!

Stranger danger is not domestic violence, so laws on domestic violence don’t apply for unpaired singletons. The thing is, they don’t have to.

Domestic violence laws n policies are about violence n threat when the perp otherwise has a right to be there. If he’s menacing and not a resident, there’s this lovely inventory of crimes n enforcements, priveleges and presumptions. Starts with trespassing, up to home invasion and castle doctrine up to no duty to retreat.

Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but…

If yr cohabiting or even further comingling with someone you doesn’t trust to possess a gun Whatt Are You Thinking? If you don’t feel safer the more tooled up they are, maybe not so much a great choice. Kick them out, or leave.

Women (In the U S, and West, generally. Mostly.) are no more chattle; no more barred access to commerce and the public sphere; can have jobs, bank accounts, their own homes, and even vote. You are not kept or controlled beyond as much or as little as anyone else might be in the face of illegal force.

Arms, particularly guns, level the ability; eliminate the advantage of larger vs. smaller, faster vs. slower, stronger vs. not. Arms knock down an advantage many men have over many women. Arms are equalizers, just like financial, movement, and contract rights.

“Finding” a gun, tucked away mayhaps suggests to own your own power, available to you, meaning a gun of yr own. If feeling disadvantaged makes you feel less safe, he ain’t the guy; or even “a” guy, for you, or anybody.

Hang out with people who, the stronger they are, the better you feel; the better they do, the better you do, too.

Meanwhile, until you find one (or several) that “more guns, better”, tool up yrself. You found his; offer to show him yours. Choose all the equalization you can get.

Until Wally-World stocks phased plasma rifles in the 40-Watt range, that’s something like an AR or AK-pattern semi-auto carbine, in an intermediate cartrige, ideally suppresses or sub-sonic. Something with all those scary features the anti-people keep banning, because those features make it a more equalizing equalizer.

Meanwhile, while you’re on your own before and until you find someone worthy to stand with you, get yourself the same tool, to enforce with strangers that you own you if need be.

Shannon should read “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. ALL teenagers should read it. We ARE different. When I was a feminist in college, there were no women in high positions. We were paid less and had to make the coffee (which I liked because I made it strong.). I see the new feminists as whiners. They have no idea what it was like in the 60’s and 70’s. If you don’t like guns, don’t date a cop.